Daniel Escamilla v. Ricardo Lara

1 2 3

4

5

6 7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 DANIEL ESCAMILLA, No. 8:23-01071-JAK (ADSx) 11 Plaintiff, 12

ORDER ACCEPTING UNITED

v. STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S 13

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

14 RICARDO LARA, et al.,

15 Defendants.

16

17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed Defendant Ricardo 18 19 Lara’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 30), Defendant Kimberly Kirchmeyer’s 20 Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 35), Plaintiff’s oppositions to the motions to dismiss 21 (Dkt. Nos. 33, 43), all supporting filings (Dkt. Nos. 31, 34, 44-47, 49), the Report 22 and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 54), the 23 Supplemental Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 24 1 (Dkt. No. 55), and Plaintiff’s Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and 2 Recommendation. (Dkt. No. 56.) 3 The Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report 4 and Recommendation to which objections were made and overrules the objections. 5 Plaintiff’s Objections argue that Plaintiff’s claims are now ripe, and amendment 6 7 would not…